245017 - "Myriad Roman" (OTF) specified in CSS is not recognized by Mozilla on Windows

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 191919

(Core :: Layout: Text and Fonts, defect)

Description

[-]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de-AT; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de-AT; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

First I found a page, rendering a <sub> like a <sup>. Then I played around a bit
and found something more.
a) mozilla has trouble with
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/fonts.html#font-shorthand (15.2.5)
b) mozilla can't decide which font to use in all cases.

I can't decide if Bitstream Vera is a fully correct implementet font on this
machine, but at least IE6 looks to handle it correct. And even if BV isn't fully
ok, there are problems in using the font-property. It is acting different if you
omit a part (see the braces in the doc?) or not. When searching for bugs with
'font render' you will get some other trouble belonging not only to windows. So
I think, there could be a very deep hidden and global problem in moz.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. have a look at the testcase I'll append (and play a bit too - there's much
more possible)
Actual Results:  
For example have a look at the images I'll append. The one is mozilla, the other
is from /the evil empire/ no. 6 ;-)

Expected Results:  
Mozilla sould go a stright line: use the selected font or ignore it.

Comment 1

[-]

Attachment: Testcase - some few examples

of course you will have to go through the font-declarations because your system
will give you other coices.

Comment 2

[-]

Attachment: Screenshot from Mozilla under my testcase

Comment 3

[-]

Attachment: Screenshot from IE6 under my testcase

Comment 4

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

> a) mozilla has trouble with
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/fonts.html#font-shorthand (15.2.5)

Could you please clearly explain what you mean by that?  I don't see your
testcase showing any problems with the shorthand....

> b) mozilla can't decide which font to use in all cases.

Again, could you please clearly explain what you mean here?  I'm not seeing any
decision problems...

I do see a slight issue with positioning of <sub> when using "Bitstream Vera
Sans" on Linux.  It's a known bug in the font, in fact -- its offset for the
subscript has an incorrect sign.  I believe jshin fixed this for Linux builds by
making us clamp the offset values, so it only looks a little off, not as bad as
your Windows screenshot shows.  I believe we have a bug filed for the equivalent
Windows fix.

Comment 5

[-]

Hi!

Looks Murphy took me along for a ride. I strugled over c00 classes 'inherited',
I didn't see that there is no room for a 'normal' between font-size and
font-family - and all because I stumbeled over a page, having BSV with some
<sub>s. (You know: if there are two ways something can fail, the third one is
the deadly one :-/)
I'll thell you the third one: after finding the <sub>/BSV-problem, I played
around. And between all the mentioned junk :-( there has been something else.
Have a look at the new source and the according image.

Franz

Comment 6

[-]

Attachment: hopefully a real testcase

Comment 7

[-]

Attachment: a composed image to compare moz vs. IE

Comment 8

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Odd.  That testcase worksforme on Linux (if I change the font family names to
font families I actually have installed, of course).

Comment 9

[-]

(In reply to comment #8)
> Odd.  That testcase worksforme on Linux (if I change the font family names to
> font families I actually have installed, of course).

I do believe. Because this problem doesn't belong to all fonts. I had to try
some of them to find it. In fact I discovered it by coincidence (tried to find
nice fonts for cursive and fantasy). Normaly you hardly will recognize if
mozilla (or any other non-typographic application) will use some other non-serif
font instead of - let's say Myriad. So of course it is a font-problem. But I
can't decide it (don't know very much of font internals and have no tools to
detect differences). And: sadly the IE (I realy don't like him but it's /part of
the OS/ like Mr. Gates claims) uses the fonts as you can see. :-(

Franz


P. S.: If someone does know sth. about fonts and can tell me how to get more
informations about them: just tell me!
P. P. S.: Hey, got a idea! I just found both of the 'bad' fonts seem to be built
with Macromedias Fontgrapher 4.1.4 7/29/98 and they are TrueType, not OpenType.
Maybe this helps?

Comment 10

[Jungshik Shin]

Can I get two fonts in question, Puppylike and Pretext? What are their license
terms? If I can get them, I'll take a look.

Comment 11

[-]

(In reply to comment #10)
> Can I get two fonts in question, Puppylike and Pretext? What are their license
> terms? If I can get them, I'll take a look.

Do you know funny windows? I found a file creation date for the font, but no
software that has been installed at the same day. And I did not install some
font 'by hand'. So I can't figure out the legal facts quickly.

But giving google a job with the copyright info ('enStep') I found some pages.
For example http://www.enstep.com/ or
http://www.proventia.fi/english_enstep.htm. Maybe (if they are the owners of the
fonts - I can't see it) http://www.enstep.fi/registration/form.jsp may help.
Poorly I'm really no good in finish (TLD .fi?!) I bet, my english is 10^100
times better ;-]. And I believe, to be man in the middle wouldn't really help
us. So please decide yourself how to continue. Maybe they are *the* enStep,
maybe they are kind and will help us.

Finaly (and for to give you at least one chance): I found
http://www.pca.ne.jp/fff/newfont/search.cgi?start=330&group=New-P in the web.
And there, page 12, on the bottom line of the table, you can find 'PRETEXT'. I
checked it, it's binary identical with mine. (The Puppy-font, which you can find
a few pages later, is *not* the same as mine - sorry.)


Franz

Comment 12

[-]

Attachment: HTML source

Source for the "Myriade"-Example

Comment 13

[-]

Attachment: Image with combined screen copies

Image, belongs to the "Myriade" example

Comment 14

[-]

In addition to the attatchments from #12 and #13:

Hello again!

I'm just back to add some more stuff. I tested a little more and now I can show
you examples with an Adobe Open Type font (think, they should know how to do this).
I used Myriad Roman (ok, Windows calls it 'Myriad-Roman' — Windows is a bit odd
about fonts), made a piece of HTML and used this under OS-X and Mozilla, OS-X
and Safari, W2K and Mozilla – and, last but not least, with W2K and Amaya
(http://www.w3.org/Amaya/). And sure I had the identical font on both machines.
If you look at the image (the letter 'y'!) you will find some differences. I
can't interpret the font-handling someone gets by the OSes and how mozilla
handles this. So you will have to find the facts. Things like: is it mozilla,
acting different than other browsers or is it the OS, giving different answers
to the apps (because of some differences in the 'font-questions')?
BTW: The right side of the image is done by Photoshop Elements and describes the
left part while the left side shows the screen shots.

Franz

Comment 15

[rbs]

Re: commment 0
> at least IE6 looks to handle it correct

Who said that? If you want to play games with symbolic fonts, use <font
face="windings">... Don't use CSS. See bug 33127 comment 168.
Try also <font face="Myriad-Roman"> in your testcase in attachment 150002 [details].

Comment 16

[-]

(In reply to comment #15)
> Re: commment 0
> > at least IE6 looks to handle it correct
> 
> Who said that?

I do. And I repeat it hereby: testing my 'myriad demo' with the IE shows the
proper font in all cases.

> If you want to play games with symbolic fonts, use <font
> face="windings">...
> Don't use CSS. See bug 33127 comment 168.

Seems like the problem doesn't belong to symbolic fonts: Myriad and it's
children do not belong to them.
And: I just had a little session with my myriad test-file: mozilla doesn't care
about CSS vs. HTML. It keeps ignoring the font beneath Windows.

> Try also <font face="Myriad-Roman"> in your testcase in attachment 150002 [details].

I added this version too: doesn't matter, the result is the same.

About the syntax and other formal things: I believe, Amaya (which is doing the
test-file as I expected) is the measure. Isn't it?


Franz

Comment 17

[rbs]

> > Who said that?
>
>I do. And I repeat it hereby: testing my 'myriad demo' with the IE shows the
>proper font in all cases.

If your thump up is based on attachment 149574 [details] "hopefully a real testcase",
then it is dubious to say the least. The testcase has:

.c04 { font: 16pt PUPPYLIKE; }
.c05 { font: 16pt PRETEXT; }
.c06 { font: 16pt "WinDings"; }

These may not work as you expect - in particular c06 for sure, and I assume the
others too, based on the screenshot in attachment 149575 [details], they look like
symbolic fonts to me (or... they may be advertising themselves as symbolic to
Mozilla).

As for the Myriad example, from your screenshot, it looks like Adobe is giving
the same rendering as Mozilla.

Comment 18

[-]

(In reply to comment #17)

> If your thump up is based on attachment 149574 [details] "hopefully a real testcase",
> then it is dubious …

Ooops, you missed comment #4 and the obsolete state for the first three examples?

> As for the Myriad example, from your screenshot, it looks like Adobe is giving
> the same rendering as Mozilla.

You tried it with Acrobat? Adobe is a big number in handling fonts and other
graphical things. But I wouldn't count on their W3C-conformance.
I had some fight with the W3C-documentation
(http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224 and
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512, base url: http://www.w3.org/TR/).
Well, maybe I lost my way in it. But there still is Amaya
(http://www.w3.org/Amaya/). So I think, I've got a good reason to think, mozilla
isn't right.
I do not consider the problem urgent. But nevertheless the W3C specs should be
one of the characteristics, which differentiate mozilla from (some) other
browsers. So I believe this shouldn't be ignored for at all.

Franz

Comment 19

[Jungshik Shin]

Comment on attachment 150002 [details]
HTML source

> <p class=ch1">Myriad Roman? .ch1</p>

Franz, There's a typo in the file (The opening quotation mark is imssing before
'ch1'). Therefore, Mozilla resolves the font family of the second test case to
'sans' (according to the DOM inspector) instead of 'Myriad Roman'. 

Please, fix it and see if you still have a problem. I don't think you'll. 

rbs, I don't think 'Myriad Roman' is a 'symbol' font. It seems to be one of new
Adobe opentype fonts with the Unicode cmap.

Comment 20

[rbs]

Attachment: myriad screenshot as shown by the built-in MS font viewer

> > If your thump up is based on attachment 149574 [details] "hopefully a real testcase",

> > then it is dubious …
>
>Ooops, you missed comment #4 and the obsolete state for the first three
examples?

The attachment isn't crossed out. Please mark the testcase as obsolete if it
is.

I hadn't tested in Acrobat. I am attaching a screenshot of what I see with the
default Font viewer of my Win2K box. It turns out that Myriad is a Type1 font
(not TrueType). It is buried
in C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Fonts\Reqrd\Base as wmr___.pfm.

Hence Windows must be synthesizing it in someway to expose it as truetype or
something. See how the 'y' in the Font viewer looks the same as that of your
screenshot of Mozilla. It doesn't look like something that Mozilla can do
something about. I will have to mark this bug as WONTFIX.

Comment 21

[-]

Attachment: x86 Image from Mozilla, fixed quote

Actual image from W2K-Mozilla; fixed the missing Quote

Comment 22

[-]

Attachment: Screenshot from W2K font viewer, Myriad Roman OTF

A hc from the W2K font viewer, Myriad Roman, OTF

Comment 23

[-]

(In reply to comment #19 and #20)

> Franz, There's a typo in the file (The opening quotation mark is
> imssing before 'ch1').

D… - you're right. (I think, I'd have more time with my bed :-[)

> Therefore, Mozilla resolves the font family of the second test case to
> 'sans' (according to the DOM inspector) instead of 'Myriad Roman'.
> Please, fix it and see if you still have a problem.

Yes. But this happens only to this paragraph. I fixed it an made a new
screenshot from the W2K-Moz.

> I don't think you'll. 

Sorry - not really.

> rbs, I don't think 'Myriad Roman' is a 'symbol' font.
> It seems to be one of new Adobe opentype fonts with
> the Unicode cmap.

Right!

> The attachment isn't crossed out. Please mark the testcase as obsolete if it
> is.

:-( (my bed, you remember?)

> I hadn't tested in Acrobat. I am attaching a screenshot of what I see with the
> default Font viewer of my Win2K box. It turns out that Myriad is a Type1 font
> (not TrueType).

I copied you - with the OTF.

> Hence Windows must be synthesizing it in someway to expose it as truetype or
> something. See how the 'y' in the Font viewer looks the same as that of your
> screenshot of Mozilla. It doesn't look like something that Mozilla can do
> something about. I will have to mark this bug as WONTFIX.

Sorry, but look at the 'y' from the W2K-Mozilla: it isn't rounded at all :-(
And it doesn't listen to "Myriad Roman" or "Myriad-Roman".

But I just have an idea: is mozilla-Win using sth. like an internal font cache?
I've got really much fonts on this machine. If moz would rely on OS-X for font
caching but handle such things itselfes under windows …???


Franz

Comment 24

[Jungshik Shin]

(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #20)

> > It turns out that Myriad is a Type1 font
> > (not TrueType).

> I copied you - with the OTF.

That must be one of fonts Adobe supplied as Type1 in the past that now come in
OTF. Franz has the OTF version while you have the old type1 version. 


> > something. See how the 'y' in the Font viewer looks the same as that of your
> > screenshot of Mozilla. 
  
> Sorry, but look at the 'y' from the W2K-Mozilla: it isn't rounded at all :-(

  rbs, you were mistaken by 'y' in "Myriad Roman" at the top of your screenshot,
but apparently it's not rendered with the font. You'd have compared the way 'y'
in 'lazy  dog' in your screenshot is rendered with the way 'y' is rendered by
Mozilla in Franz's screenshot. As Franz wrote, 'y' in "Myriad Roman" is rounded
but in Mozilla's rendering 'y' is not rounded at all. That is, somehow Mozilla
is picking up a font other than "Myriad Roman". 

> it doesn't listen to "Myriad Roman" or "Myriad-Roman"

 Which one  works for MS IE, 'Myriad-Roman' and 'Myriad Roman'? 

Comment 25

[-]

(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #23)
> > (In reply to comment #20)

>   rbs, you were mistaken by 'y' in "Myriad Roman" at the top of your screenshot,
> but apparently it's not rendered with the font. You'd have compared the way 'y'
> in 'lazy  dog' in your screenshot is rendered with the way 'y' is rendered by
> Mozilla in Franz's screenshot. As Franz wrote, 'y' in "Myriad Roman" is rounded
> but in Mozilla's rendering 'y' is not rounded at all. That is, somehow Mozilla
> is picking up a font other than "Myriad Roman". 

Thanks for understanding me - im not very good in english :-)

> > it doesn't listen to "Myriad Roman" or "Myriad-Roman"
> 
>  Which one  works for MS IE, 'Myriad-Roman' and 'Myriad Roman'? 

The 'Myriad Roman' version ist the one understood in every case where it works.


Franz

Comment 26

[Jungshik Shin]

Comment on attachment 149574 [details]
hopefully a real testcase

This is obsolete as well. This attachment is testing two "symbol" fonts that we
wouldn't support the way MS IE does if they're used in CSS. They'd work if
'font-face'('quirky mode') is used.

Comment 27

[Jungshik Shin]

(In reply to comment #25)


> >  Which one  works for MS IE, 'Myriad-Roman' and 'Myriad Roman'? 
> 
> The 'Myriad Roman' version ist the one understood in every case where it works.

 OS X test cases don't count because OS X and Win2k have different font naming
schemes.  Have you tried it on Windows with MS IE (I know you have with Amaya,
but apparently you haven't with IE)? 

Comment 28

[rbs]

Care to attach the .otf file here to make it accessible for installation? All I
have is that "wmr___.pfm" which is buried deep in that Adobe folder I mentioned
earlier.

Comment 29

[Jungshik Shin]

(In reply to comment #28)
> Care to attach the .otf file here to make it accessible 
> for installation? 

I'm not sure f Franz can. It seems like we have to buy it (or it's bundled with
Adobe Illustrator or other Adobe products).

http://desktoppub.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.adobe.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fquery%3Fmss%3Dsimple%26pg%3Dq%26what%3Dweb%26fmt%3D.%26where%3Dwww_type_main%26superq%3Dmyriad%26index%3DAdobeComType%26rd%3D%26q%3Dmyriad%26x%3D41%26y%3D6

Comment 30

[-]

>  OS X test cases don't count because OS X and Win2k have different font naming
> schemes.

I just sayd maybe there is a windows font problem as windows is handling fonts a
bit odd. But I can't decide: I don't know much about the way this is handled by
the OSes. I just know OS-X is the better choice, it knows more about typography.

> Have you tried it on Windows with MS IE (I know you have with Amaya,
> but apparently you haven't with IE)? 

Sure. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=150003&action=view does show
an example but there is a mistake in the source (the missing quote), discarding
the second row of each test.
ttp://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=150040&action=view is the fixed
one, just from the IE alone.

Comment 31

[-]

(In reply to comment #29)
> (In reply to comment #28)
> > Care to attach the .otf file here to make it accessible 
> > for installation? 
> 
> I'm not sure f Franz can. It seems like we have to buy it (or it's bundled with
> Adobe Illustrator or other Adobe products).

I'm afraid you're right. It isn't simple to figure out because I've got really a
lot of fonts here (I should kick some of them but first I need a tool to order
them - windows own tools don't give a real overview) and the font filenames from
'real windows fonts' are a bit strange very often (for examle 'mtcorsva.ttf' is
'Monotype Corsiva' and fontview claims it to be open type. Open Type called ttf?).
I believe there are more fonts that mozilla handles like Myriad Roman. But how
to find them?
So my guess was: as there must be some people doing the coding of font handling
in mozilla. Maybe some of that people would have an idea what I could do. Of
course such a person could tell me something about a tool for inspecting fonts.
It would let me have a look on MyR's /option bits/, I could search for other
fonts of the same kind and so on. Maybe there is someon, knowing about the
differences between the OS-X port and the windows-port, having some ideas. Or
something else I don't see.

Comment 32

[Jungshik Shin]

(In reply to comment #30)

> > Have you tried it on Windows with MS IE (I know you have with Amaya,
> > but apparently you haven't with IE)? 
> 
> Sure. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=150003&action=view does show

Am I missing something? In that screenshot, I can only see Safari and Mozilla on
OS X and Amaya and Mozilla on Windows. Moreover, attachment 150040 [details] is Mozilla's
rendering on Windows, isn't it? 

BTW, please, just use 'attachment' followed by the attachment number (like
attachment 150003 [details]) instead of the full url (http:......). 

attachment 150003 [details] (you shouldn't have used the full url to refer to an
attachment. You can just use 'attachment 150003 [details]'). 

Just in case, where do you have 'Myriad Roman' font? Is it in Windows font
folder? Can you select it for Western in Edit | Preference | Font ? 

Comment 33

[-]

Attachment: The IE6-Version of the Myriad Roman example

IE-rendering of the (fixed) myriad roman example

Comment 34

[-]

(In reply to comment #32)

> Am I missing something? In that screenshot, I can only see Safari and Mozilla on
> OS X and Amaya and Mozilla on Windows. Moreover, attachment 150040 [details] is Mozilla's
> rendering on Windows, isn't it? 

Ooops - you're right. Seems I've got a week of incompleteness :-(
I now created attachment 150093 [details] for that.

> BTW, please, just use 'attachment' followed by the attachment number (like
> attachment 150003 [details]) instead of the full url (http:......). 

I'll do - didn't know this feature. Thanks!

> Just in case, where do you have 'Myriad Roman' font? Is it in Windows font
> folder? Can you select it for Western in Edit | Preference | Font ? 

Yes for both of your questions.

Comment 35

[Jungshik Shin]

Thanks for attachment 150093 [details]. I have little idea what's going on, but certainly
there's a problem with Myriad Roman. I wish I could put my hands on the font.
Franz, can you find any other font(s) with the same problem? 

BTW, can you open up DOM inspector (Tools | Web Development | DOM Inspector) and
make sure Mozilla-Win correctly resolves the font to 'Myriad Roman'?  In the URL
bar of DOM inspector, type the URL of your fixed html source, open up the tree
(by default, it's HTML) and select BODY and P, in turn, and in the top right,
choose 'Object - Computed style'(by default, it's Object-DOM Node). Please, see
if the computed value of 'font-family' is 'Myriad Roman'.   

Comment 36

[-]

Attachment: Source for the 'More Fonts' testcase

Source for a few font renderings

Comment 37

[-]

Attachment: Screenshot for MoreFonts out of mozilla/W2K

Screenshot, Moz, W2K, made from MoreFonts.html

Comment 38

[-]

(In reply to comment #35)
>… but certainly
> there's a problem with Myriad Roman. I wish I could put my hands on the font.
> Franz, can you find any other font(s) with the same problem?

Not only one! I wonder why someone didn't notice this before! Have a look on
attachment 150110 [details] and attachment 150111 [details].
In facht I got trouble to find fonts done right! For a moment I believed,
mozilla only would see default fonts until I found Square 721 BT and (funny!)
small fonts (which isn't TTF or Open Type).

> BTW, can you open up DOM inspector (Tools | Web Development | DOM Inspector) and
> make sure Mozilla-Win correctly resolves the font to 'Myriad Roman'? …
> Please, see if the computed value of 'font-family' is 'Myriad Roman'.

It is! I can see the proper font-family where it should be expected for any
cases I checked now. In the MoreFonts.html I've to go down one step more for the
first line 'Aachen' - but this is expectet because of the <font face> construct.
(I'd wonder if not because the OS-X version does handle the fonts.)
Looks like the problem ist in a place I'd call 'output engine'.

BTW and in reply to your comment #32: I found that mozilla is dividing the font
selection list by a line. Looks like the top part is filled with fonts mozilla
thinks them to be ok for the selected use, the lower part not (for example:
selecting sans serif fonts shows Times in the bottom part). If this is correct
(don't have some docu for that): Myriad Roman is handled so.

Comment 39

[Jungshik Shin]

(In reply to comment #38)
Thanks for testing and the screenshot.

> Not only one! I wonder why someone didn't notice this before! Have a look on
> attachment 150110 [details] and attachment 150111 [details].
> In facht I got trouble to find fonts done right! For a moment I believed,
> mozilla only would see default fonts until I found Square 721 BT and (funny!)
> small fonts (which isn't TTF or Open Type).

 It's not as bad as you think. In attachment 150111 [details], 'Magneto','Academy Engraved
LET', 'Allegro BT', 'Arial', 'Arial Unicode MS', 'Times New Roman' and 'Tahoma'
work well in addition to 'Square721' and 'Small fonts'.  The question is why the
rest of the pack (Aachen, Adobe Caslon Pro, Aja, Adlus Roman,Alexa, Alibi,
Times, Toolbox, Umbra) are ignored by Mozilla. 

Can you come up with a criterion by which two groups can be separated from each
other? Are fonts in the latter group all by Adobe and OTFs(with type 1
outlines)? Is there any of them freely available? (Times may be a part of Adobe
Acroread). 

BTW, can you recognize a font used to render test cases where your specified
font is ignored? Is it your default 'sans-serif' font set in Preference|Font? 

Becase fonts like Arial, Tahoma (Windows core fonts) work well, nobody has
noticed the probelm, I guess. 

Comment 40

[-]

(In reply to comment #39)

> It's not as bad as you think. In attachment 150111 [details], 'Magneto',
> 'Academy Engraved LET', 'Allegro BT', 'Arial', 'Arial Unicode MS',
> 'Times New Roman' and 'Tahoma' work well in addition to 'Square721'
> and 'Small fonts'.

Sorry, but this isn't what I see: I selected a couple of fonts showing does and
dont's. In fact I've got much more fonts which don't.

> The question is why the rest of the pack (Aachen, Adobe Caslon Pro,
> Aja, Adlus Roman,Alexa, Alibi, Times, Toolbox, Umbra) are ignored by Mozilla.

Yes, but …

> Can you come up with a criterion by which two groups can be separated from each
> other?

sorry, I still can't. I'd have told you if I'd have some idea about that. But as
I wrote I don't know a tool that is telling me more about the internals (and
gives me a chance to group fonts with or without respect to that infos).

> Are fonts in the latter group all by Adobe and OTFs(with type 1
> outlines)?

All the fonts I used for the last example not marked in the screenshot to be TTF
or Bitmap are OTF. I'm not fully sure about the font tech probably installed
behind users view, but I don't see Type 1 fonts at the machine.

> Is there any of them freely available? (Times may be a part of Adobe
Acroread).

I don't know if some of the fonts are available for free.
But let me give you the infos I can see here. I'm using this scheme:
<font name from the example>:
N: name of the font in the fontview-app.
I: infos about the font, received by opening the font in the font-folder:
"name", "version", C-Info
F: file name told by 'properties' of the font in the font-folder.
C: optional comment.

Aachen:
N: Aachen
I: "Aachen-Bold"; "OTF 1.0; PS 001.002;Core 1.0.22"; "Copyright(c) 1987, 1991,
1994 Adobe Systems…"
F: Aachen-Bold.otf
C: As I opened the font folder I just could find a Aachen-Bold. (Be asured I
tested for that with my last example: doesn't matter).

Absalom:
N: ABSALOM
I: "ABSALOM"; "Macromedia Fontgrapher 4.1.4 7/29/98"; "Copyright (c) 1996 enStep
Incorporated …"
F: Absalom_.TTF

Academy Engraved LET:
N: Academy Engraved LET
I: "Academy Engraved LET Plain:1.0"; "1.0"; "COPYRIGHT ESSEL TE LETRASET LTD., 1990"
F: 46152___.TTF
C: I'm not sure about the number of underscores in this name.

Adobe Caslon Pro; Adobe Caslon Pro Bold:
N: Adobe Caslon Pro
I: ?
F: ?
C: I can't identify this fonts: there are some ACaslon* and some Adobe* fonts in
the font folder, but I can't see a pattern matching the other Adobe Caslon fonts
in the font view app.

Aja:
N: Aja
I: "Aja"; "OTF 1.0;PS 001.001;Core 1.0.22"; "Copyright (c) 1995, 1998 Adobe …"
F: Aja.otf

Aldus Roman:
N: Aldus Roman
I: "Aldus-Roman";"OTF 1.0;PS 001.000;Core 1.0.22"; "Copyright (c) 1991 Adobe …"
F: Aldus-Roman.otf
C: maybe distributed by Adobe.

Alexa:
N: Alexa
I: "Alexa";"OTF 1.0;PS 001.001;Core 1.0.22"; "Copyright (c) 1995 Adobe …"
F: Alexa.otf

ALIBI:
N: ALIBI
I: "ALIBI"; "Macromedia Fontgrapher 4.1.4 7/29/98"; "Copyright \(c\) 1996 enStep
Incorporated. …"
F: Alibi___.TTF
C: I'm not sure about the number of underscores in the filename.

Allegro BT:
N: Allegro BT
I: "Allegro BT"; "Version 2.001 mfgpctt 4.4"; "Copyright 1990-2001 Bitstream Inc. …"
F: Alleg_Rg.ttf

Arial:
N: Arial
I: "Arial"; "Version 3.00"; "Typeface (c) The Monotype Corporation plc. Data (c)
The Monotype …"
F: arial.ttf

Arial Unicode MS:
N: Arial Unicode MS
I: "Arial Unicode MS"; "Version 0.84"; "Digitized data copyright (C) 1993-1999
The Monotype Corporation. …"
F: ARIALUNI.TTF

Times:
N: Times
I: ?
F: ?
C: like the Adobe Caslons I can't identify the font file.

Times New Roman:
N: Times New Roman
I: "Times New Roman"; "Version 3.00"; "Typeface (c) The Monotype Corporation plc. …"
F: times.ttf

Toolbox:
N: Toolbox
I: "Toolbox"; "OTF 1.0; PS 001.000;Core 1.0.22"; "Copyright (c) 1993 Adobe …"
F: Toolbox.otf
C: Ooops: this font isn't in the font folder - it's referenced by a link!

Umbra:
N: Umbra
I: "Umbra"; "OTF 1.0;PS 001.001;Core 1.0.22"; "Copyright (c) 1989, 1990 Adobe …"
F: Umbra.otf
C: This font is linked too.

Tahoma:
N: Tahoma
I: "Tahoma"; "Version 2.80"; "Typeface and data (c) 1995-1999 Microsoft …"
F: tahoma.ttf

Square 721 BT:
N: Square721 BT
I: "Square 721 BT"; "mfgpctt-v1.53 Friday, January 29, 1993 1:47:52 pm (EST)";
"Copyright 1990-1993 Bitstream Inc. …"
F: TT0246M_.TTF

Small Fonts:
N: Small Fonts
I: "Small Fonts"; -; -
F: smalle.fon

> BTW, can you recognize a font used to render test cases where your specified
> font is ignored? Is it your default 'sans-serif' font set in Preference|Font?

I'm afraid my english is too poor. I don't understand this in all. But for
example if I slect Myriad Roman for sans-serif in moz preferences I can
successfully select it by selecting the generic family sans-serif. This is done
so even if the sans-serif is the last option in a chain with not rendered fonts.

> Becase fonts like Arial, Tahoma (Windows core fonts) work well, nobody has
> noticed the probelm, I guess.

And maybe only few people try to 'real typography' by assuming fonts at client
side (and what makes me think this isn't a big problem - as long there is no
buffer overflow or so within the problem).

Comment 41

[-]

(In reply to comment #40)
Oops - just one point more:

> > Is there any of them freely available? (Times may be a part of Adobe
> Acroread).
> 
> I don't know if some of the fonts are available for free …
but some of them may be found in the Corel Packages (Draw, Photopaint and so).

Comment 42

[-]

Attachment: HTML-Source for the following image

As I upgraded to the new mozilla (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0;
de-AT; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616) I just tested a bit with my old examples. Now I
believe I found a small piece of the truth. Look an this and then see the next
attatchment!

Comment 43

[-]

Attachment: A screen copy from the Fontskip.html

First I think, the new mozilla is rendering the fonts a bit taller - be aware
not to copy IEs wrong behaviour!

Ok, I didn't see something real new so I played again. And funny: mozilla is
'skipping' fonts! Not one of the shown fonts is a preset here and now. But I
did play with these fonts just some tests before I got this screen copy! I
think, mozilla is using the fonts with some funny offset (and of course in
respect to some font parameters): when rendering example n it seems to use some
font n - x.

Franz

Comment 44

[-]

*** Bug 235804 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 45

[Mikkel Lauritsen]

Is this the same problem as the one I'm seeing with Mozilla 1.7.1 and Firefox
0.9.2 on Windows 2000 on the site http://www.bilbasen.dk ? It uses CSS like

.effekttegn {
	FONT-FAMILY: Webdings;
	Color: #FF0000;
	text-indent: 5px
}

to (try to) render the "4" character as a small arrowhead pointing right. It
works in IE, but Moz/Firefox ignores the font specification.

Comment 46

[rbs]

No. That's bug 94319. Use <font face="Webdings"> if you absolutely want that font.

Comment 47

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

"Myriad Roman" (OTF) has PostScript outline.
Dupe of #191919. The fix will be included in Firefox 1.1.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 191919 ***